[187451] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Devices with only USB console port - Need a Console Server
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=)
Tue Feb 2 05:16:25 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= <bjorn@mork.no>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:16:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaZprmshTOgai7HR=f=+ZYbKU-LvfoErUSfPysoGDbo4Kg@mail.gmail.com>
(Christopher Morrow's message of "Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:56:55 -0500")
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> writes:
> seems like a total improvement.... swapping 1 well known, simple cable fo=
r 2...
>
> hurray progress?
The USB port is probably cheaper than anything else. And it gives them
more flexibility. No need for both an RS232 and Ethernet console port.
The USB port can be both, depending only on driver/application support
on the router. And you have other options as well. Wifi console maybe?
Or a direct USB-USB cable (with the necessary logic to appear as a
device to both ends).
It is also possible to create USB only console servers, if the market
wants that. Avoiding two RS232 conversions per console port will save
enough capacitors to run a Tesla.
Whether these alternatives become available is of course up to Cisco.
You do need the driver and application support on the router. Time will
show what they come up with.
Bj=C3=B8rn
